Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lurcio 10

Since we are bandying statistics that cant be proven, let me say that I believe the vast majority of UK punters want nothing to do with trafficked women or children. And I also believe that the vast majority of WGs in the UK are working of their own free will. I think "my statistics" are just as valid as "theirs" but I cant prove them any more than they can.

So what to do - well I guess you need to establish in the terms of the contract you form with said WG that she is not trafficked, pimped or underage. The test case will probably hinge on deciding what is a reasonable effort on the punter's part to establish these facts. So if having attempted, to the best of your knowledge, to be legal (prostitution still being legal of course) and then the WG lies for whatever reason, is that a valid defence if you then break the law without knowing it?

As usual the only winners here will be the lawyers, the real victims will just be pushed further underground.

Of course, one solution would be to properly legalise and regulate brothels (though this doesnt help indys) - but we couldnt be having that could we?!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Philjul 10

"Researcher Ruth Brisling, from the charity Lilith Project who work with The Poppy Project, said: "The old law only found men who paid for sex with a girl aged 13 or under guilty of a crime.

"Above that, they could plead ignorance, were given a slap on the wrist and sent home. This new law changes that. Pleading ignorance will no longer be acceptable and paying for sex with a vulnerable woman working against her will now be completely illegal. "

ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS.

I cannot believe the bare-faced ignorance here. It is SIMPLY WRONG to say the 'old' law only found men guilty of an offence if the female was 13 or under. Any claim that the male belived the female to be of legal age ha to be REASONABLE.

Bear in mind, that:

1. When sex is paid, the female has to be 18 for it not to be illegal under the Sexual Offences Act (2003). Thus, to be able to 'plead ignorance' you have to not only GENUINELY believe the female is 18, but this belief has to be REASONABLE

2. Due to the gravity of the offence, the startung premiss will be that the belief is not reasonable, even if genuine. You would be highly unlikely to surmount these obstacles

It is also unfair that it is an offence whether you knew the female was controlled, or ought to have known or not. So, a bloke has no idea that a female is controlled. There are no signs that would give ANYONE an idea that the female is controlled. If caught, he is guilty. Unfair.

Here is the most illogical part - the prosectution would have to prove that the female is controlled. SO WHY NOT ARREST AND CRIMINALISE THOSE DOING THE CONTROLLING?

And 'control' is not defined. If a female is employed by an agency, this could come within the provisions of the Act. This is absurd. It should be restricted to females FORCED to work against their will.

A much more fair, practical and enforceable offence could have been drafted. It would have been fair for an offence to be committed if a man pays for sex with a female forced to work against her will, where the bloke knew or should have known that this was the case.

Harman wants to outlaw prostitution but hasn't got the guts to go all the way. It's a pity that she wasn't so condemnatory of paedophiles when she was at the Council for Civil Liberties. Punters and girls incur her wrath, the scum of the Earth apparently don't:

A lot of Eaves 'facts' have to be taken with large pinch of salt. See the outraged academics collective reply to the Big Brothel Report.

The Sun article is a typical Eaves ploy of anecdotal and emotive 'evidence' designed to play on the reader's heartstrings. The Sun will print it because salacious stories sell copy. I'm not saying it's necessarily untrue, but this being the Sun who knows. What I am saying is that this type of story is statistically unrepresentatitive of the industry and deliberately and mischievously misleading.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dmc32 42

I agree this is rubbish journalism. It's the Sun after all, but all the media treat this subject in a similar way.

Trouble is, any crackdown will only really affect the sort of ladies and punters represented by this forum.

The poor girls in the 'story' and others like them are controlled by criminals who by definition, do not give a f*** about law enforcement. What they're doing is already unlawful anyway and they'll keep coercing women and their families just like they do now.

Do you believe the stats you quoted Lou. Maybe I haven't met a very good cross section on ladies, but I'd be surprised if the numbers were anywhere near among the ones I've met?

I imagine that as usual, stats are published to support the prejudice of those doing the publishing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Laura Lee 105

Since we are bandying statistics that cant be proven, let me say that I believe the vast majority of UK punters want nothing to do with trafficked women or children. And I also believe that the vast majority of WGs in the UK are working of their own free will. I think "my statistics" are just as valid as "theirs" but I cant prove them any more than they can.

So what to do - well I guess you need to establish in the terms of the contract you form with said WG that she is not trafficked, pimped or underage. The test case will probably hinge on deciding what is a reasonable effort on the punter's part to establish these facts. So if having attempted, to the best of your knowledge, to be legal (prostitution still being legal of course) and then the WG lies for whatever reason, is that a valid defence if you then break the law without knowing it?

As usual the only winners here will be the lawyers, the real victims will just be pushed further underground.

Of course, one solution would be to properly legalise and regulate brothels (though this doesnt help indys) - but we couldnt be having that could we?!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lou4fun 10

Do you believe the stats you quoted Lou. Maybe I haven't met a very good cross section on ladies, but I'd be surprised if the numbers were anywhere near among the ones I've met?

I imagine that as usual, stats are published to support the prejudice of those doing the publishing.

I believe facts can be edited and quoted out of context. Depending on what story your selling depends on which way you bump the figures. The Sun have carefully chosen extracts from Figures supplied by charity Eaves.

Who the hell knows where they got them from:confused:

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

starman 29

At the Prostitution Town Hall meeting last week, several panelists stated that the average age of entry into prostitution was 12-14 year old. Although this claim is clearly implausible, it generated the impression that virtually all prostitutes started as children, and became the basis for the discussion that followed thereafter.

But the impression is unfounded. The figure comes from a 2001 report written by University of Pennsylvania researchers Richard Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, and is actually the average age of entry into prostitution among minors who are in prostitution.

If you survey only minors, average age of anything would be pretty low. For example, the average age of death for those who died during childhood would be some shockingly low figure, but it does not tell us anything about the average life expectancy of the population at large.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

punter992005 51

"Researcher Ruth Brisling, from the charity Lilith Project who work with The Poppy Project, said: "The old law only found men who paid for sex with a girl aged 13 or under guilty of a crime.

"Above that, they could plead ignorance, were given a slap on the wrist and sent home. This new law changes that. Pleading ignorance will no longer be acceptable and paying for sex with a vulnerable woman working against her will now be completely illegal. "

ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS.

It's even worse than you say as that's not the "old" law. It's still on the statute books and is a completely separate law, dealing with underage girls in paid sex. Nothing to do with force/coercion etc on prostitutes as a whole. I had to laugh when poppycock wrote that under the old law they plead ignorance, got a slap on the wrist and were sent on their way. Now they plead ignorance, get a £1000 fine and are sent on their way.....that'll learn them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Triumph 12

I believe facts can be edited and quoted out of context. Depending on what story your selling depends on which way you bump the figures. The Sun have carefully chosen extracts from Figures supplied by charity Eaves.

Who the hell knows where they got them from:confused:

Probably from prostitutes who have come to them who have been victims of various abuses BUT this can no way be a representative sample and therefore like most other surveys that have poor sampling, turns out to be total nonsense!!

Its like saying that 99% of people are murderers when the people asked were convicted murderers!!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Philjul 10

It's even worse than you say as that's not the "old" law. It's still on the statute books and is a completely separate law, dealing with underage girls in paid sex. Nothing to do with force/coercion etc on prostitutes as a whole. I had to laugh when poppycock wrote that under the old law they plead ignorance, got a slap on the wrist and were sent on their way. Now they plead ignorance, get a £1000 fine and are sent on their way.....that'll learn them.

I know mate, the 'new' law doesn't repeal the 'old' - was using the terms that the purported authority on this subject and the legal implications used. Whilst having no apparent understanding of the factual situations, let alone the legal intricacies.

It is a complete nonsense of a law. Unenforceable, targetting the wrong people and believing the bullshit that an illegal entrant WG is a coerced WG.

The 'New Labour' project has spent its 12 years targetting those that pose no harm, whilst excusing those that do. I voted for the bastards in 1997, a well.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Barrack 20

When HH turned her sights on page 3 girls I felt sure the Sun would turn against her and be on the side of evidence against hypocracy, but no they chose to go for the unreliable hypocracy on this occasion. Shows how unreliable small minds with an eye for sensationalism over fact are.

May be the Sun is consoling itself that Labour is going to lose the coming election. If Labour won with HH still in place she'll come gunning for Sun page 3 next.